Inclusion. As many community members as possible should be involved in the process. Nobody should be excluded or left out (unless they ask to be excluded). Participation. Not only is every person included, but each and every person is also expected to participate by contributing opinions and suggestions. While there are various roles that others may have, each person has an equal share (and stake) in the final decision. Co-operation. All the people involved collaborate and build upon each other’s concerns and suggestions to come up with a decision or solution that will satisfy everyone in the group, rather than just the majority (while the minority is ignored). Egalitarianism. Nobody’s input is weighed more or less than anyone else’s. Each has equal opportunity to amend, veto, or block ideas. Solution-mindedness. An effective decision-making body works towards a common solution, despite differences. This comes through collaboratively shaping a proposal until it meets as many of the participants’ concerns as possible. [2] X Research source
Better decisions- because all perspectives in the group are taken into account. The resulting proposals are therefore able to address all the concerns affecting the decision as much as possible. Better group relationships- through collaborating rather than competing, group members are able to build closer relationships through the process. Resentment and rivalry between winners and losers is minimized. Better implementation of decisions- When widespread agreement is achieved and everyone has participated in the process there is usually strong levels of cooperation in follow through. There are not likely to be disgruntled losers who might undermine or passively sabotage effective implementation of the group’s decision.
Required unanimity One dissenter (also called U-1, or Unanimity minus one) means that all participants support the decision except for one. The individual dissenter usually can’t block the decision, but may be able to prolong debate (like the infamous filibuster). Due to their skepticism of the decision, the lone dissenter makes a very good evaluator of the outcome of the decision because they can view it with a critical eye and spot negative consequences before others would. Two dissenters (U-2 or Unanimity minus two) also can’t block a decision, but they are more effective at prolonging debate and obtaining a third dissenter (in which case a decision usually can be blocked) if they agree on what is wrong with the proposal. Three dissenters (U-3 or Unanimity minus three), is recognized by most groups as enough to constitute non-consensus, but this can vary between decision-making bodies (especially if it is a small group). Rough Consensus doesn’t specifically define “how much is enough”. The working group leader or even the group itself must decide when a consensus has been reached (although this can create additional disagreement when consensus cannot be reached about coming to a consensus). This places increased responsibility on the leader and can stir further debate if the leader’s judgment is questioned. Super-majority (can range from 55% to 90%) Simple Majority Referred to a committee or leader for final ruling.
